Why shouldn't the mother have the option to abort?

[Ceridwen018]

Typically, I don't enjoin discussions regarding abortion rights because arguments predicated upon appeals to logic rarely successfully overcome arguments predicated upon appeals to emotion. It's very difficult to overcome objections about how someone "feels" about an issue.

I agree and heavily sympathize with this sentiment.

"Opposed to abortion? Then don't have one." succinctly summarizes the concept of secular law that imposes no personal burden of (moral) acceptance, but permits freedom of personal choice.

This is an excellent point. However, I have a strong problem with pro-choicers trying to sugarcoat things, perhaps to help themselves sleep better at night. You value logical arguments against feelings, I am sure, but are you ready to accept the medical science over the desperate cry of denial that says, "Its not living or human, so it doesn't matter!"

If we can accept the notion that government has no place or purpose in telling it's own people what to think; how to feel; whom to love; or how to live...then we should certainly be able to discern and declare for ourselves as a collective and self-governing whole which laws and civic policies are reasonable, moral, and universally applicable without favor or prejudice towards any specified individual or grouping of individuals.

I wonder how many supporters of Terri Schiavo were pro-choice? This is a rhetorical question as I honestly don't know, but I should hope the number would be low. Many of the pro-choicers I have come into contact with have had severe problems with consistency. For instance, they would consider a fetus to be a simple non-living ball of something, and Terri Schiavo to be a living human with a soul.

The crux of the "abortion debate" will eventually boil down to civil society definitively answering the question of "What is a person?"; not, "What is, or constitutes, life?"

I agree completely with this.

Unquestionably, a fertilized ovum is "living human tissue", and therefore a form of "life". Such "life" retains the potential of gestating into a human fetus; and eventually, a fully grown and delivered "baby" (indeed, a "person").

A fetus has as much potential of becoming a born baby as a born baby has potential to become a toddler. Yet, we cannot kill born babies. This is why I have a serious problem with the "potential" argument--its just a play on semantics.

Another point is that a fetus is much more than "human tissue", just like you and I. Very early on a fetus has numerous differentiated tissues and functioning organs. The heart beats and brain activity can be observed by the end of the first trimester, and many women don't even realize they are pregnant at that point. Also, premature babies are able to be saved and kept alive at earlier and earlier stages in the pregnancy. Right now, a 24 week old fetus can survive outside of the womb, and that is only the middle of the second trimester. To the best of my knowledge, abortions are permitted up to the end of the second trimester.

But soon enough (whether collective society approves or not), virtually any human tissue will retain the potential for creating independent "life"...from hair follicles to fluffed off skin cells (any eukaryotic cell that has a full set of chromosomes).

The difference is that turning a hair follicle into a fetus would be cloning, (instead of a completely unique human), and that's a whole other can of worms.

As things stand, I prefer to defer to the properly established rights of living breathing humans to exercise personal choice, absent undue governmental intrusion...versus granting ubiquitous equality to any and all potential persons.

First of all, even I only have the potential to become a full-grown adult. Potential is an argument built on sand. Second of all, the law is probably the most inconsistent regarding abortion. last year there was a case where a woman was in a car accident, and miscarried her child as a result. The man who hit her was charged with manslaughter! I think you would agree that that is ridiculous--the fetus is either a living human or it isn't! (For the record, science says that it is). In another case, a woman was charged with murder for pounding herself in the stomach, (or something of that nature), in order to miscarry as an alternative to abortion. I don't think that women should be allowed to make themselves miscarry in the privacy of their homes due to health reasons, etc., but if the fetus is not a living human that woman should not have been charged with murder!

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Abortion is just one of many disgusting acts that should be allowed by the government. It is a real shame that there are people out there hollow enough to kill their children, but the fact remains, would you want the type of people who would kill their children to be raising children? What kind of people would these poor children end up becoming?

Do you really want the type of people who would kill their children procreating and spreading their genes? In fact, in some cases, having an abortion has the negative effect of ruining your chances of having anymore children. This is a benefit if it stops these kinds of people from spreading their genes.

Second, people are irresponsible when it comes to sex. Do we really want irresponsible people being the ones having the most children? What kind of a society would that create? For these reasons, I think abortion should be legal, but I would never look kindly on anyone who used that operation.

 

[Aqualung]

Since when does your neighbor live in your body- or even on your property?

It doesn't matter where it lives. Just because it is dependent on you (as children are for a long time) does not mean you have the right to take its life before asking it.

 

[jamaesi]

I wonder how many supporters of Terri Schiavo were pro-choice? This is a rhetorical question as I honestly don't know, but I should hope the number would be low. Many of the pro-choicers I have come into contact with have had severe problems with consistency. For instance, they would consider a fetus to be a simple non-living ball of something, and Terri Schiavo to be a living human with a soul.

Way to go offtopic, but I´ll answer. There´s a difference between a brain damaged woman with merely a brain stem and no hope or chance of recovery or a decent life and a fetus.

Also, premature babies are able to be saved and kept alive at earlier and earlier stages in the pregnancy.

And their health is adversely effected by this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_birth

The shorter the term of pregnancy is, the greater the risks of complications. Infants born prematurely have an increased risk of death in the first year of life. They are also at a greater risk for developing serious health problems such as: cerebral palsy, chronic lung disease, gastrointestinal problems, mental retardation, vision and hearing loss.
...
Infants born more than 2 weeks prior to 40 weeks show physical signs of their prematurity and may develop other problems as well. Common problems in infants with severe to moderate prematurity (26 to 34 weeks) include jaundice, hypoglycemia, hypocalcemia, respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intracranial hemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotizing enterocolitis(NEC) and rickets.
The earliest gestational age at which the infant may survive is referred to as the limit of viability. As NICU care has improved over the last 40 years, the limit of viability has declined to about 25 weeks (400-500 grams). As risk of brain damage and developmental delay is significant at that threshold even if the infant survives, there are ethical controversies over the aggressiveness of the care rendered to such infants.

Abortion is just one of many disgusting acts that should be allowed by the government. It is a real shame that there are people out there hollow enough to kill their children, but the fact remains, would you want the type of people who would kill their children to be raising children? What kind of people would these poor children end up becoming?

Your empathy and compassion continues to kill me. You act as those people have abortions for fun. There are reasons people get abortions. People don´t waltz into abortion clinics gleefully and come out singing merrily about their abortion.

And sorry to burst your bubble, peoplewho have had abortions sometimes do go on to raise wonderful children.

 

[jamaesi]

It doesn't matter where it lives. Just because it is dependent on you (as children are for a long time) does not mean you have the right to take its life before asking it.

There is a huge difference between the way a fetus is depedant on you and the way a child is and I don´t think any of us here are trying to kill babies. In fact, I´m more concerned about suffering children than the "poor innocent fetus!"

 

[michel]

Abortion is just one of many disgusting acts that should be allowed by the government. It is a real shame that there are people out there hollow enough to kill their children, but the fact remains, would you want the type of people who would kill their children to be raising children? What kind of people would these poor children end up becoming?

Do you really want the type of people who would kill their children procreating and spreading their genes? In fact, in some cases, having an abortion has the negative effect of ruining your chances of having anymore children. This is a benefit if it stops these kinds of people from spreading their genes.

Second, people are irresponsible when it comes to sex. Do we really want irresponsible people being the ones having the most children? What kind of a society would that create? For these reasons, I think abortion should be legal, but I would never look kindly on anyone who used that operation.

Wow - so, in your opinion abortions should be legal, but the people who use the facility should be frowned on. Strange attitude.

 

[s2a]

Hello Mister Emu...

[*sigh*...
See? I said there were good reasons why I don't interject myself into abortion discussions...]

When I noted that pregnancy termination was a legal and guranteed right (albeit with restrictions/limitations), you said:

Hopefully we can once again make this act illegal.

A dream is a wish your heart makes.

Hoping to criminalize the actions of doctors and women in personal health and family planning decisions is not something I would hope for, nor wish upon anyone. I'm old enough to recall the days prior to legalized choice, and the horror stories that accompanied them.

I said:
Typically, I don't enjoin discussions regarding abortion rights because arguments predicated upon appeals to logic rarely successfully overcome arguments predicated upon appeals to emotion. It's very difficult to overcome objections about how someone "feels" about an issue.

You replied:

I must agree, thus the difficulties arising in a debate with pro-choice advocates.

Ralph: "Ooh. Good comeback, Potsie." ;-P

I have felt your pain regarding the difficulties you may encounter engaging discussions on abortion and choice. In all but the most extreme or rare instances, I have chosen to spare myself the pain, and no longer bother with such "debates". As far as I'm concerned, the "issue" is settled law, and a woman's right to exercise personal choice in whether or not to terminate an unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy is constitutionally protected. That's it. Settled, and done.

I introduced what I consider the next (as yet unresolved) aspects of "personhood" as matters of (un)settled law, and it's furtive and inexorably grinding efforts to catch up with medical science and technology of both today and tomorrow.

Yes, I am an advocate of a woman's personal right to choice in matters of personal health and conception...though I am not an "active" advocate of medical abortion itself. The right of any woman to choose to either have, or not have, a pregnancy terminated (for any reason) is simply a matter of settled law, and I'm not going to waste my time looking back and revisiting what I consider a moot point.

I am well pleased to consider myself a social progressive, as I find my efforts better spent looking to the future...than regressing into some "nirvana" of the past that never was, and will never be (no matter how many wistful folks wish they could drag the rest of us kicking and screaming backwards in time to retread the same obstacles over and over again).


I should have qualified as an ideal, instead of unmitigated absolute:
"To our sustaining credit, we are a society of self-governing people that establish secular law as neither favoring nor prejudicing any one individual's feelings or opinions"

Are you serious? Today the feelings and opinions of the one/few far outweigh the majority.

Ideally speaking, yes (I'm quite serious). As a republic, we are doing okay, but still have more to do in this unique continuing experiment of secular self-government. We do not live in a strict democracy of majority (or mob) rule, thank goodness. And yes, sometimes the rights of the few (or the one) do outweigh the wishes of the many (From Marbury vs. Madison, to: Strauder vs. West Virginia; Morgan vs. Virginia; Brown vs. Board of Education; Abington School Dist. vs. Schempp; Miller vs. California; Miranda vs. Arizona; Griswold vs. Connecticut; Powell v. Georgia; and so on...).

It's nice to think that every once and a while, the rights of the individual are (affirmed as) more important than the simple majority opinion of the day.

Anecdotally, I offered:
"The commonly seen bumper sticker that states "Opposed to abortion? Then don't have one." succinctly summarizes the concept of secular law that imposes no personal burden of (moral) acceptance, but permits freedom of personal choice.
Your poor rebuttal analogy entailed:
And makes about as much sense as "Opposed to murder? Don't kill anyone.""

You said:

The one I offered makes more sense than yours. Abortion is legal. Murder is not. One retains the protected choice whether or not to have an abortion.
The other (Murder in the legal sense - as opposed to killing someone in mitigating cause) is not a protected choice nor an available legal option for anyone.

One needn't even make the case from an ethical/moral viewpoint to decide that murder should be against the law. If you intentionally deprive another individual person of their life (without their consent), you deprive them of their rights to due process and their own human/civil liberties (death penalty recipients have had their due process and lengthy consideration of their rights).
[Note: Obviously...no - I don't consider a fertilized ovum; a blastula, or an embryo to be a "person" endowed or protected with "equal rights"; legally, morally, or ethically. So there. ;-)]

The government and law can and do impose morality upon the populace.

One man's morality is another man's definition of civil rights/liberties. You might say that stealing your neighbor's TV is "immoral"; I would say that such an act deprives your neighbor of his own property without granted consent. In a secular form of government and law, you may not deprive another of their own individual rights of property and privacy, whether you think your actions are morally justified or not. It ain't about your opinions of morality or ethics; it's about protection of each individual's own rights as guaranteed under constitutional law.

Morality is subjective. Law is (ideally) objective.

When opponents of choice to legal abortions begin to couch their arguments around secular aspects of individual rights and liberties, I may then choose to engage a fruitful debate on the topic.

You said:

"Laws are not, nor will they ever be entirely without prejudice nor favor towards a(n) (group of)individual(s). Nor should they be."

Indeed not all aspects of favor, bias, or prejudice are removed from extant laws. If they were (just Imagine, John Lennon!), there would be no need of legislative or judicial branches of self-government. We could simply enjoy the dictates and mandates of a benevolent dictator instead...

If you honestly believe that laws should evince favor and bias (for and/or against) towards either an individual, or a group of individuals, then from my own idealistic perspective, we'll just be left to disagree.

Slightly out-of-(relevant) context, you quoted me:
Why would a blastula or fertilized ovum have any less of a potential "right to life" than a toenail clipping, or some residue snot in a Kleenex?

It is not potential, it is actual. A fetus is a seperate and distinct human entity. It has a seperate and disitinct DNA.

A human clone borne of a toenail clipping would be no different (or "separate and distinct") than other "natural" identical siblings (twins, triplets, etc.). A human clone's "potential" as a person (or persons in this case) would be no more, and no less than that of identically split (mitosis) ova.
[Which was the intent of the commentary I offered, that law has yet to resolve. Would a human clone qualify as a person, whether or not their gestation took place at any time within a human host? Obviously, that is a topic for another discussion.]

I concluded in saying:
As things stand, I prefer to defer to the properly established rights of living breathing humans to exercise personal choice, absent undue governmental intrusion...versus granting ubiquitous equality to any and all potential persons.

You mischaracterized my summary in saying:

I agree, to grant rights to toenail clippings is absurd. Thus we should limit rights to distinct human life.

Well. I guess your opinion settles matters...or perhaps not.

 

[s2a]

Hello Ceridwen018,

I appreciate your thoughtful and measured comments.

You said:

I have a strong problem with pro-choicers trying to sugarcoat things, perhaps to help themselves sleep better at night. You value logical arguments against feelings, I am sure, but are you ready to accept the medical science over the desperate cry of denial that says, "Its not living or human, so it doesn't matter!"

First, any insomnia I may periodically experience is not attributable to my position(s) supporting rights of individual privacy and personal morality/ethics

Second, it would be inaccurate to suggest that I (always, or exclusively)) value logic over emotion, for that is simply not the case. I do not attempt to logically evaluate the unconditional love a dog evinces towards his human family members...or why I continually love my wife despite the fact she sometimes does things that cause me to not like her very much...or why I prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate. These are matters of pure emotional response, otherwise unworthy of grand introspection or analysis. The difference is, I can separate matters of emotion from matters of logic, and know when and how to utilize proper discretion and appropriate effort in discussing the often dichotomous distinctions between the two.

Third, in answer to your pointed question I would reiterate that I am foremost a skeptic by nature, and in practice. Very rarely will I accept any notion ("scientific" or not) on "face value" alone. If I were a native-borne Mizzou, I might say; "Don't tell me...show me". The conclusions I have drawn are my own to account for, and I do not readily align myself with any aspects or proclamations of abject denial or absolute certitude.

As regards the quote: "Its not living or human, so it doesn't matter!"; I would say that it "matters" (insomuch that intentional termination of any living thing is often regrettable - but I'm not giving up hamburgers or fried chicken as a result...because my interests supercede any cow's or chicken's own interests), but not as much as (or more than) an individual (human) person's own "rights" to determine and choose (as best they can) their own life and destiny.

You said:

"A fetus has as much potential of becoming a born baby as a born baby has potential to become a toddler. Yet, we cannot kill born babies. This is why I have a serious problem with the "potential" argument--its just a play on semantics."

[Forgive me, but as preface:
"semantics"; noun -
"The study or science of meaning in language.
The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form"
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language]

"Semantics" are how we define parallels and illustrate differences in matters of civil/criminal law.

For instance, there are numerous "semantical" distinctions we employ to define the killing of one human person by another - If of willful intent (or especially premeditated intent), we define such an act as "murder". If accidental in intent, we call such killings "manslaughter". If intentional, yet mitigating circumstances are extant (ie., self-defense), a "killing" of another person has undeniably occurred (someone is, in fact, quite dead), yet no legal culpability may be attached for such an act. The same is true for those deemed unresponsible for their own actions by means of mental defect, or a lacking capacity to appreciate the consequences of their actions (akin to a five-year old that accidentally shoots a sibling).

Should it be considered a "more heinous" crime to kill and dismember person with an axe, than to merely shoot them with a gun? Are there any "semantical" distinctions to be drawn and qualified in the killing of another person? You tell me.

It is often convenient or comforting to simplify an person's or societal action or choice in facile terms (ie., "Abortion is murder!"; a "War on Terror (or poverty, or drugs, or whathaveyou)"; "Fur is Dead"; "Just say no"; and a host of other simplistic/jingoistic phrases that ignore/dismiss important aspects of nuance and relative perspective).

So, it may be (at least) partially correct to conclude that qualifying a "potential" person from an "actual" person is "just a play on semantics"...but in terms of defining law...it's a necessary component.

Another point is that a fetus is much more than "human tissue", just like you and I.

Very early on, a fetus has numerous differentiated tissues and functioning organs. The heart beats and brain activity can be observed by the end of the first trimester, and many women don't even realize they are pregnant at that point.

Your point is noted, but it still doesn't define by what measure, or when (by time frame) a potential person becomes an individual person.

[Consider: In the not too distant future, it may be possible to gestate a human embryo without need of a human host - from conception to full-term (9 month) development. Now...what if the "potential person" in question was conceived (not cloned) from anonymous donor egg and sperm?
No named or known "mother" or "father".
No "birth-mother".
To whom does this (now) "person" lay claim as rightful parents?
Who now lays claim (and responsibility) to the new "baby"?
The medical doctor that performed the initial conception, or the staff that oversaw the gestation process?
How about the facility (or corporation) that provided the means and methods of such an anonymous procreation?
Is such a "baby" a "person" or property?

On the other hand, if the instigating doctor of conception drops the petri dish that holds the fertilized ovum, is he guilty of manslaughter?
What if the developing "petri-fetus" is accidentally used as an ashtray by an unsuspecting visitor, or a supervising staff member forgets to "feed" the developing embryo for a weekend, and it subsequently "dies"?
Whom is culpable, and for what crime?

What if a consenting couple initially decides (and pays) to have such a facility procreate an anonymous embryo, only to decide a month later that they, after all, do not want the "potential" person? Should they be legally obliged to accept and provide for what they bought and paid for?
Could/should another couple be allowed to "adopt" the unwanted embryo without the initial couple's legal consent?
Is the unwanted embryo a person, or property (and if so, who retains the rights as such)?
Can the embryo petition for legal counsel in it's defense? If so, how can it aid in it's own defense?
Whom does the State petition for/against, and to what/which beneficient end?
Does the State argue for the rights of a couple to choose not accept a procreated anonymous "person", or against the "rights" of say...a homsexual couple, to "adopt" an unwanted anonymous embryo? If so, then whom is culpable for the cost and care of the gestating "potential" person - the couple that paid for the initial conception procedure; the prospective adoptive couple; or the State itself as self-appointed guardian and ward?

And so on, and so on...

And I haven't even touched on human cloning issues yet...;-)]

You said:

Also, premature babies are able to be saved and kept alive at earlier and earlier stages in the pregnancy. Right now, a 24 week old fetus can survive outside of the womb, and that is only the middle of the second trimester.

Thanks to the "miracles" of modern medical science, yes. And as illustrated above, those "miracles" may (one day) extend to the point where a human host may not be required at all to conceive, gestate, and subsequently "deliver" any human baby (with or without any "parental" interest, involvement, or consent whatsoever). Someday (soon enough), we may see veritable "baby factories", wherein companies (for profit) may in fact "produce" (albeit "anonymosuly) genetically favorable or specific "persons" by mail order, or a few clicks of stated preferences on a web site. How many you want? What color eyes would you prefer? Tall or short? Smart, athletic, or long-lived (or all)?

Philosophically, at some point, our society and culture will have to confront these "potentialities", and craft definable aspects of secular law to encompass the breadth of impending and opinionated conflicts of ethics and morality...both opposed and in concert with civil/human (established legal and protected) rights.

We are dealing today with similar aspects of what constitutes or defines "person-hood" in matters of "right-to-die" cases. The "wonders" of medical science and technology allow for virtual unending artificial support for basic bodily mechanics. We can sustain blood flow, breathing, and eating - all by artificial means...almost indefinitely.

But just because it's possible, does that mean it's practical, or even humane? Is a "person" with no measurable brainwave activity alive or dead (it depends upon which state you reside), or even a "person" at all? If a person's heart stops beating, how long should heroic measures be employed to revive such a victim? Why should a doctor decide? Does it mitigate matters if that doctor is in a hospital, in a disaster area, or on a battlefield? What if that doctor could save five other lives by "giving up" on the first victim? Which choice is more ethical and moral? Do we persecute the choice of abandoning a brain-dead person for the potential of saving five others? For that matter, is it more or less ethical and moral to feed and clothe starving children in some far flung, unseen land...before providing the same care to one's own next-door neighbors?

Does "potential" play a role in making these decisions?

Are the worms out of the can yet? ;-)

 

[michel]

s2a,

I am not going to make the same mistake of trying to debate with you, because we seem to speak different languages - I see now you are outpouring your intellect on this thread - I just wondered, are you really such a master of 'all trades' - if so, you ought to be heading Mensa..............

 

[Ceridwen018]

Second, it would be inaccurate to suggest that I (always, or exclusively)) value logic over emotion, for that is simply not the case. I do not attempt to logically evaluate the unconditional love a dog evinces towards his human family members...or why I continually love my wife despite the fact she sometimes does things that cause me to not like her very much...or why I prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate. These are matters of pure emotional response, otherwise unworthy of grand introspection or analysis. The difference is, I can separate matters of emotion from matters of logic, and know when and how to utilize proper discretion and appropriate effort in discussing the often dichotomous distinctions between the two.

Agreed. However, I would suggest that you look deeper into your preference for vanilla, as it is a scientific fact that chocolate is far superior.

Philosophically, at some point, our society and culture will have to confront these "potentialities", and craft definable aspects of secular law to encompass the breadth of impending and opinionated conflicts of ethics and morality...both opposed and in concert with civil/human (established legal and protected) rights.

We are dealing today with similar aspects of what constitutes or defines "person-hood" in matters of "right-to-die" cases. The "wonders" of medical science and technology allow for virtual unending artificial support for basic bodily mechanics. We can sustain blood flow, breathing, and eating - all by artificial means...almost indefinitely.

s2a, I just have to laugh. You and I do not disagree as much as you think we do. You seem to agree with most of what I've said, and I certainly agree with most of what you've said. I'm sorry if I've mislead you, but I've been very careful not to voice my opinions on this issue--I've only tried to present facts.

But just because it's possible, does that mean it's practical, or even humane? Is a "person" with no measurable brainwave activity alive or dead (it depends upon which state you reside), or even a "person" at all?

Exactly. Terri Schiavo, for instance, was not "living" in my opinion and in most of the opinions of doctors I've spoken with.

As I've said before, this is where many pro-choicers become insonsistent. They don't want to admit that an unborn fetus is a living human, but they aren't willing to accept that people on life support are at times in the same category.

Does "potential" play a role in making these decisions?

Potential does play a role in the situations you mentioned above. If a person's heart stops, for instance, the doctor is obligated to work to get it going again until all options have been exhausted and it is obvious that the person is dead.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

People don´t waltz into abortion clinics gleefully and come out singing merrily about their abortion.

Why not? I would sure as heck be glad to get rid of some nonhuman glob of parasitic tissue... :sarcastic:

 

[michel]

Why not? I would sure as heck be glad to get rid of some nonhuman glob of parasitic tissue... :sarcastic:

A) you are not a woman - and therefore your logic is paramount; a woman's views would be more emotional.
b) I find your description of any fetus as being"some nonhuman glob of parasitic tissue... " as being very hartless, and unecessarilly upsetting. Believe it or not, I am upset by your choice of words.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

First, the fetus is a parasite...

This is a truly sick and offensive statement that ignores the miraculous gift of life. The pro-life crowd has its own wackos like Operation Rescue, but the the pro-abortion crowd's total disregard for unborn babies pushes me further away from their side more than any special interest group I've encountered.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Michel, just a guess, but I think Mr_Spinkles was being sarcastic.

 

[Aqualung]

There is a huge difference between the way a fetus is depedant on you and the way a child is and I don´t think any of us here are trying to kill babies. In fact, I´m more concerned about suffering children than the "poor innocent fetus!"

I don't think there is that big of a difference. A fetus and a child are both beings that are undeniably reliant on a parent, and it it the parent's job, because of her actions, to care for the child, or fetus, whichever the case may be. It's a responibility that must rightfully be carried out, though there are quite a few who are doing a poor job of it both to the fetuses and the children.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I quite agree, Aqualung.

Ask any mother, and they will probably tell you that a fetus is actually a lot more maintenence free than a born baby. Born babies are a 24 hour job all by themselves. They need to be fed, washed, and have their diapers changed on a regular basis, not to mention their erratic sleeping habits. With a fetus, you might be more tired than usual and you have to watch what you eat, but beyond that you're good to go! If only the uterus could continue its job of hassle-free nannying through the toddler years!

 

[Mister Emu]

As far as I'm concerned, the "issue" is settled law, and a woman's right to exercise personal choice in whether or not to terminate an unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy is constitutionally protected. That's it. Settled, and done.

It is, but law changes. Once it was settled law and a man's constitutionally protected right to own dark skinned persons as property, it changed, and so can this.

as I find my efforts better spent looking to the future...

I agree.

It ain't about your opinions of morality or ethics; it's about protection of each individual's own rights as guaranteed under constitutional law.

Just where do you believe that constitutional law and civil rights came from?

When opponents of choice to legal abortions begin to couch their arguments around secular aspects of individual rights and liberties, I may then choose to engage a fruitful debate on the topic.

Ahh, and just what do you think we base our views on? Obviously, I view the fetus as a person with the entitled rights therein(namely the right to not be deprived of life without due process).

If you honestly believe that laws should evince favor and bias (for and/or against) towards either an individual, or a group of individuals, then from my own idealistic perspective, we'll just be left to disagree.

Do you believe that mentally handicapped persons should face the same penalties as fully functioning persons for a crime? We show favor towards handicapped persons, I find that this is as it should be.

A human clone borne of a toenail clipping would be no different (or "separate and distinct") than other "natural" identical siblings (twins, triplets, etc.).

It would not be any different, your point? If a person were to be cloned I believe that he/she should have every right a naturally born person does.

A human clone's "potential" as a person (or persons in this case) would be no more, and no less than that of identically split (mitosis) ova.

Yes it is different(that is if I am getting your meaning, please correct me if I am wrong). A piece of hair(or whatever) left on the floor does not become a person. A split ova left in the womb generally, barring miscarriage, becomes a person.

 

[s2a]

Hello Michel,

You said:

"I am not going to make the same mistake of trying to debate with you, because we seem to speak different languages..."

Fortitudine vincimus. ;-) (Now try to imagine that spoken aloud with an East Tennessee dialect and inflection...)

"...I see now you are outpouring your intellect on this thread..."

Hunh? Just shootin' the breeze off the top of my head here...really...

"...I just wondered, are you really such a master of 'all trades' - if so, you ought to be heading Mensa.............."

Heh. Your "left-handed compliments" are truly your most confounding comments (to your credit) of which to lend any appropriate measured reply.

I claim mastery (or expertise) of no topics, though I am well-informed in many, and more informed than others may claim (or wish) to be for themselves. Unquestionably, I am decidedly ignorant of issues or topics that hold little or no interest for me, which is probably fairly said of most other folk.

I do entertain and indulge myself with a broad range of interests, most of which I have yet to even touch upon within this forum. I am more active (proactive even) in issues that deal directly (or indirectly) with aspects of U.S. History, constitutional law, social/educational policies, and politics. Often enough, these interests coincide or parallel those of espoused (and primarily Christian) religious belief(s) as they may relate to: requirements or mandates of teaching "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" as science in public schools; "10 Commandments" (or other religious icons/dogma) placements in federal/state/local funded facilities; injection/insistence of "Divine acknowledgement" in U.S. currency, the Pledge, or sworn oaths of public office; public school prayer/worship; equality of civil/human rights/liberties; in fact, any relevant issues that concern potential usurpations of secular/pluralistic aspects of constitutionally supported separations of religion and government.

But hey...I enjoy dogs (and cats, and "birding"), gardening, writing, astronomy, watching movies and reading books (from Classic fiction to contemporary sci-fi), muscle cars, collegiate football, space exploration, theoretical physics, and adventurous cooking (amongst quite a few others). I volunteer a few hours each week to mentoring "at-risk" kids (and relax...I leave kids to find their own spirituality without injecting my own atheistic perspectives), and two evenings a week preparing and serving meals at a downtown homeless shelter (yes...it's Christian-based. ;-)).

As to Mensa, I was an erstwhile member (on a dare) in my college days - but I shudder to think how much (or to what measurable degree) I might miserably humiliate myself in any subjected test of intelligence today. It's more fun to pretend to be old and wizened, than just some smart whippersnapper that knows a bunch of stuff.
[Besides...who wants to associate themselves with a bunch of self-important, bombastic, garrulous, acerbic, ideologic and idealistic smartypants? I'd much rather spend my limited time here...;-)]

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A) you are not a woman - and therefore your logic is paramount; a woman's views would be more emotional.
b) I find your description of any fetus as being"some nonhuman glob of parasitic tissue... " as being very hartless, and unecessarilly upsetting. Believe it or not, I am upset by your choice of words.

I'm sorry that my post upset you. I was being sarcastic (hence the :sarcastic: icon).

A fetus is being compared to a toenail clipping? How absurd. Sure, a 6 month old fetus isn't a fully developed human being....then again, a newborn isn't a fully developed human being, either. I wonder...can a toenail clipping suck its thumb?

 

[s2a]

Hello Ceridwen018,

You said:

"s2a, I just have to laugh. You and I do not disagree as much as you think we do. You seem to agree with most of what I've said, and I certainly agree with most of what you've said. I'm sorry if I've mislead you, but I've been very careful not to voice my opinions on this issue--I've only tried to present facts."

I had not concluded that our perspectives were especially divergent or different, because (as you say), you have kept most personalized opinions to yourself.

"Terri Schiavo, for instance, was not "living" in my opinion and in most of the opinions of doctors I've spoken with."

I guess this is where "semantics" enters the discussion again. Legally (by Florida law), Ms. Schiavo was unquestionably "alive" (from earlier established precedent), to wit:

"For legal and medical purposes, where respiratory and circulatory functions are maintained by artificial means of support so as to preclude a determination that these functions have ceased, the occurrence of death may be determined where there is the irreversible cessation of the functioning of the entire brain, including the brain stem, determined in accordance with this section. [609 So. 2d 588 - Florida Supreme Court]
Source: [ http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~phils4/tacp.html ]

Without belaboring the entire issue point-by-point, it's accurate to say that under Florida law, Ms. Terri Schiavo was "legally" alive, and (still) a "person". This illustrates a fundamental flaw in the law itself, and should not be inferred to suggest that it appropriately addresses any philosophical or qualitative aspects of what (may or should) constitutes veritable personage or individuality.

It's accurate to say (post-autopsy facts revealed) that whomever Terri Schiavo was (as a cognitive, thinking, feeling person), she was no longer "there" (she was, in fact, no more than an artificially-supported living/breathing corpse). If her unfortunate circumstance and condition had befallen her in the time of her mother's inception, she would have been quite (and very) legally dead, most suitable for immediate mourning and burial.

To say that Ms. Terri Schiavo wasn't "living" is a proffered philosophical (and sound medical) position, but technically...not a legal distinction. Blame the law, not the doctors or philosophical pragmatists in her case...

{PS. "Brain Death", legally defined: [ http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Brain_death ]

"As I've said before, this is where many pro-choicers become insonsistent. They don't want to admit that an unborn fetus is a living human, but they aren't willing to accept that people on life support are at times in the same category."

Many, but not all, and not those like myself. As you may or may not have noted, I readily concede that a developing embryo is both "human" and "living". I merely submit that such an embryo is not a "person"; either morally, ethically, or legally.

Introducing the concepts of legal protections for undelivered or undeveloped "potential persons" opens up an insoluble array of legalistic "cans of worms", that defy satisfactory definition or "potential" enforcement.

If a woman miscarries, can or should she be prosecuted for her behaviors that may (or may not) have contributed to her miscarriage? If she willfully engaged in energetic sex, or drank excessive amounts of alcohol, or ingested unsupervised amounts of drugs (or smoked like a chimney)...is the mother guilty of "murder", "homicide", or "man(baby)slaughter"? Or is she guilty of abject irresponsible behavior (which may or may not be directly attributable to her initial unintended pregnancy)? If so, then should we not (as a society) prosecute promiscuous consensual sexual activity of any kind?

What if the miscarrying mother is unaware of her pregnancy, or made best efforts utilizing artificial conception to prevent such an unintended pregnancy (like many responsible married/committed couples do)? How does the State even begin to ascertain the facts surrounding a miscarriage? What means, methods, or evidence gathering tools should be implemented to enforce legal protections for any dividing ova? Perhaps any female that is menstruating and demonstrably pre-menopausal should be subjected to State-regulated and mandated pregnancy testing every 5-15 days, to insure adequate responsibility/culpability under the law. How else could a civil society hope to insure the rights of any "person" under the law?

I dunno...maybe, just maybe...it makes more sense (societally) to define and establish protected rights of "personhood" upon embryos bought to term (and subsequently birthed) by deliberative means and motives of the mother herself - and retain crucial aspects of medical/sexual/behavioral privacy and personal liberties rights/within the scope of realistic and implementable/enforceable legal constitutional definitions of such protections.

Why place the burden of proof and imposed choice upon a collective society in this regard? At what point should any individual's cognitive and experienced sense of morality/ethics/values exceed another's as a matter of enforceable civic/criminal law? Are precepts/opinions of "morality" enough to establish/sustain such laws? Or should we leave it to the protected rights of the individual to exercise and retain their own personalized sensibilities of morality (as long as in so doing, they do not impose/infringe upon the rights of others)?

"'Potential' does play a role in the situations you mentioned above. If a person's heart stops, for instance, the doctor is obligated to work to get it going again until all options have been exhausted and it is obvious that the person is dead."

Aha! But obvious to whom, and by what unwavering standard? Do doctor's in fact, "play god" (and/or should they...and if so, under what conditions/factors)? Or are (or should) "Life-and-death" decisions be left to the cognizant, compassionate, and rational living members (of veritable "persons") amongst us...including prospective mothers of "potential persons"?